Greta Thunberg

[T. A. Gardner]

He supports global suicide.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

No, I support what works. Solar and wind are major losers. Things like the New Green Deal are nothing but quasi-Marxist nonsense disguised as environmentalism.

What works is natural gas to nuclear plus hydrogen (N2N+H). That gets the CO2 reduction. It gets us cheap plentiful electrical power that is highly reliable and doesn't need a "smart grid." Hydrogen gets us a portable fuel that removes the need for gasoline and diesel and at the same time is both practical, portable, integrates into existing delivery systems, and completely makes useless, expense battery cars unnecessary.

Which is smarter?

A parking lot full of these:

or a single pump at a gas station that can do as many cars in the same time?

Top that off with intelligent routing systems and self-driving cars and most public transit becomes obsolete. No more buses, less light fail...err... rail. No need for idiotic choo choo trains no matter how fast that nobody uses (at least in the US).

Sure, all of that completely demolishes the radical Left's energy and transportation plans and ideas, but that's a good thing since they're a bunch of retards to begin with.

 

[rjhenn]

No, I support what works. Solar and wind are major losers. Things like the New Green Deal are nothing but quasi-Marxist nonsense disguised as environmentalism.

What works is natural gas to nuclear plus hydrogen (N2N+H). That gets the CO2 reduction. It gets us cheap plentiful electrical power that is highly reliable and doesn't need a "smart grid." Hydrogen gets us a portable fuel that removes the need for gasoline and diesel and at the same time is both practical, portable, integrates into existing delivery systems, and completely makes useless, expense battery cars unnecessary.

Which is smarter?

A parking lot full of these:

or a single pump at a gas station that can do as many cars in the same time?

Top that off with intelligent routing systems and self-driving cars and most public transit becomes obsolete. No more buses, less light fail...err... rail. No need for idiotic choo choo trains no matter how fast that nobody uses (at least in the US).

Sure, all of that completely demolishes the radical Left's energy and transportation plans and ideas, but that's a good thing since they're a bunch of retards to begin with.

Funny, Iowa currently gets over 40% of its electricity from wind. Pretty good for a "major loser".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Funny, Iowa currently gets over 40% of its electricity from wind. Pretty good for a "major loser".

And, where do they get it when the wind doesn't blow...?

But wind is way better than solar. The sun sets everyday...

 

[cancel2 2022]

And, where do they get it when the wind doesn't blow...?

But wind is way better than solar. The sun sets everyday...

It was certainly blowing a few weeks ago, so much so that there was no power at all for a week in parts of Iowa. I wonder how many windmills were damaged?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...-70-mph-winds-expected-metro-area/3334513001/

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It was certainly blowing a few weeks ago, so much so that there was no power at all for a week in parts of Iowa. I wonder how windmills were damaged?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...-70-mph-winds-expected-metro-area/3334513001/

That is a problem. When the wind blows too hard they don't produce either. One tornado through the wind farm and you have a new power plant project.

 

[rjhenn]

And, where do they get it when the wind doesn't blow...?

But wind is way better than solar. The sun sets everyday...

The wind always blows in Iowa. But that would be a good use for hydrogen, to capture extra energy to be used as needed later. AAMOF, I recall reading an article about that. Some inventor devised a system that used a catalyst to generate a hydrogen rich fluid and another to efficiently extract the hydrogen for fuel.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The wind always blows in Iowa. But that would be a good use for hydrogen, to capture extra energy to be used as needed later. AAMOF, I recall reading an article about that. Some inventor devised a system that used a catalyst to generate a hydrogen rich fluid and another to efficiently extract the hydrogen for fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

That's a starter...

Anyway... I have far less problems with wind as generation source than solar. It is much better. The problem is you can't rely on it for base loading so you are limited to about 30% of total need in terms of capacity.

Using it to make hydrogen fuel is a great idea. I have no problem with that. But for reliable, cheap electricity nuclear backed by natural gas is overall the best current combination.

Think about this like this:

2020 We have the ability to use nuclear power
1920 Oil was becoming the preferred energy source
1820 Coal was the big thing in energy
1720 We chopped down forests and burned the wood for energy

In 300 years we've gone from wood to nuclear for energy. Where will we be in another 300 years? Hint: It won't be wind and solar.

 

[rjhenn]

That is a problem. When the wind blows too hard they don't produce either. One tornado through the wind farm and you have a new power plant project.

Of course, the article says nothing about any damage to windmills. The power outages appear to be primarily due to a lot of downed power lines.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

That's a starter...

Anyway... I have far less problems with wind as generation source than solar. It is much better. The problem is you can't rely on it for base loading so you are limited to about 30% of total need in terms of capacity.

Using it to make hydrogen fuel is a great idea. I have no problem with that. But for reliable, cheap electricity nuclear backed by natural gas is overall the best current combination.

Think about this like this:

2020 We have the ability to use nuclear power
1920 Oil was becoming the preferred energy source
1820 Coal was the big thing in energy
1720 We chopped down forests and burned the wood for energy

In 300 years we've gone from wood to nuclear for energy. Where will we be in another 300 years? Hint: It won't be wind and solar.

The problem with nuclear is dealing with the waste and contamination. Hopefully In another 300 years we'll be using something clean, like antimatter.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Of course, the article says nothing about any damage to windmills. The power outages appear to be primarily due to a lot of downed power lines.

Some quick photo evidence:

Wisconsin

Puerto Rico

One of the biggest surprises with these wind farms is the accelerated wear of the blades due to dust in the air. Engineers seriously underestimated the abrasion dust does to the blades causing them to wear out in a few years rather than the scheduled decade plus. This has dramatically increased the cost of preventative maintenance on these units.

 

[rjhenn]

Some quick photo evidence:

Wisconsin

Puerto Rico

One of the biggest surprises with these wind farms is the accelerated wear of the blades due to dust in the air. Engineers seriously underestimated the abrasion dust does to the blades causing them to wear out in a few years rather than the scheduled decade plus. This has dramatically increased the cost of preventative maintenance on these units.

Of course, with no cost for fuel, they're still fairly cheap to operate.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Of course, with no cost for fuel, they're still fairly cheap to operate.

The problem is that individually, they generate fairly small quantities of power and it is DC so it requires additional equipment to convert it to usable AC. The units are also relatively high maintenance and the land they are on is unusable for other purposes. Then there's the fact they are just a major eyesore.

 

[rjhenn]

The problem is that individually, they generate fairly small quantities of power and it is DC so it requires additional equipment to convert it to usable AC. The units are also relatively high maintenance and the land they are on is unusable for other purposes. Then there's the fact they are just a major eyesore.

Whine, whine, whine!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[cancel2 2022]

And, where do they get it when the wind doesn't blow...?

But wind is way better than solar. The sun sets everyday...

The US gets around 1% of it energy from solar, pretty piss poor investment to my mind! Crescent Dunes and Ivanpah have both gone bust, incredibly expensive way to fry birds of prey.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The problem is that individually, they generate fairly small quantities of power and it is DC so it requires additional equipment to convert it to usable AC. The units are also relatively high maintenance and the land they are on is unusable for other purposes. Then there's the fact they are just a major eyesore.

Jesus wept, how many times has some idiot said the wind is free? What is the working life of those huge offshore turbines, the environment is incredibly hostile. I can't see them lasting more than 20 years at most, wind turbines are found to lose 1.6 ± 0.2% of their output per year, with average load factors declining from 28.5% when new to 21% at age 19. Then there is the question of decommissioning and disposal of huge glass fibre blades.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113005727

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Wind turbines need regular maintenance and lots of it. Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens got into wind generation for a bit thinking it was the next big thing. He found it was a total bust and bailed.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-billionaire-pickens-blows-off-plans-for-wind-farm
https://www.fastcompany.com/1514275/t-boone-pickens-officially-gives-texas-wind-power
https://www.pjstar.com/article/20090709/News/307099829

Solar has other issues. Water consumption is high due to the cleaning requirements and this is a problem in desert regions. Clearing land and the solar arrays create urban heat island effects (in the worst cases, the "bird cookers") that disrupt local weather patterns. PV solar has a service life of 15 to 30 years depending on the panels used.

It's all stupidity. To match one nuclear plant 24/7 you need roughly a solar array 75 to 100 miles on a side. Can you imagine every bit of desert between LA and Phoenix paved over in solar panels to provide power? That's what we're looking at here. It's insane.

You see, if you want CO2 reduced, fine by me. But I want it done in a responsible and efficient way. That way is natural gas and nuclear, not wind and solar. Convincing the radicals on the Left is possible. I showed this guy nuclear was the answer and he bought in.

The guy on the right is Jonathan Paul an ALF terrorist. Yep, met him and showed him the light. Also told him how to fix the roof leaks on his house...

 

[moon]

With the collapse of the excesses of the aircraft industry a shift from aircraft manufacture to wind turbines would, significantly, reduce their production costs- and provide employment for the assholes that have been polluting our atmosphere for so long. Nobody can have failed to notice the dramatic improvements in jet-free air quality and wind turbines do not cause significant atmospheric damage. That's one excellent reason for increasing their usage- which , no doubt, will get up the noses of corporate polluters.

Haw, haw..................haw.

 

[moon]

Greta Thunberg

'This is me at the age of 2. The picture was taken 2005 in France.
Since then about one third of ALL the world’s fossil fuel CO2 emissions have occurred. Over half of our CO2 emissions have taken place since 1990.

That sort of gives you an idea of how fast we’re racing in the wrong direction. Our annual emissions are now so high that every single year of Business As Usual will impact future living conditions for countless generations. Join us this Friday, September 25th for the global climate strike.' #FridaysForFuture
#facetheclimateemergency

Troll trap. Here they come ;

 

[rjhenn]

Wind turbines need regular maintenance and lots of it. Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens got into wind generation for a bit thinking it was the next big thing. He found it was a total bust and bailed.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-billionaire-pickens-blows-off-plans-for-wind-farm
https://www.fastcompany.com/1514275/t-boone-pickens-officially-gives-texas-wind-power
https://www.pjstar.com/article/20090709/News/307099829

Solar has other issues. Water consumption is high due to the cleaning requirements and this is a problem in desert regions. Clearing land and the solar arrays create urban heat island effects (in the worst cases, the "bird cookers") that disrupt local weather patterns. PV solar has a service life of 15 to 30 years depending on the panels used.

It's all stupidity. To match one nuclear plant 24/7 you need roughly a solar array 75 to 100 miles on a side. Can you imagine every bit of desert between LA and Phoenix paved over in solar panels to provide power? That's what we're looking at here. It's insane.

You see, if you want CO2 reduced, fine by me. But I want it done in a responsible and efficient way. That way is natural gas and nuclear, not wind and solar. Convincing the radicals on the Left is possible. I showed this guy nuclear was the answer and he bought in.

The guy on the right is Jonathan Paul an ALF terrorist. Yep, met him and showed him the light. Also told him how to fix the roof leaks on his house...

Of course the problem with nuclear is the incredibly dangerous waste. Nuclear isn't practical until we can figure out fusion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Legion]

I was listening to an interesting programme on Aids (BBC 4) last night, and it was similar under Reagan. His regime ignored it until some very strong and well-publicised demos brought him to heel.

Is that so?